welcome-image-wide
blog-header
By Lana Mitchell
 
I am proud to be a Scientologist – but frankly, it is not the name ‘Scientologist’ that is important to me. 
 
In a discussion some months back, on Facebook, the question was posed “When do you call someone a Scientologist?”  Is it when they have read a book and cognited on the workability of the tech? Is it when they are an auditor and have helped another? Does the person have to be actively training or auditing? If they have not read Dianetics, can they still call themselves a Scientologist? It was fascinating to watch the responses from people in answer to this question.
 
My view is that the question is a stupid one.
 
 
Whether you call yourself a Scientologist, a Serpentologist, or a Serendipitist – it is irrelevant. The key is application of the body of work.
 
Are you learning and applying the tech in your personal life, with your family, in your work place and to those around you? Are you using the technology to better conditions and to help people?  
 
If you answer “yes” to these questions, then I would say you are a Scientologist – regardless of whether you consider yourself one of not.
 
Case in point – my mother.  She has been off lines for more than 26 years. She does not call herself a Scientologist anymore, yet she applies many, many basic Scientology principles, tools and basics in her day to day life – from the use of ARC, the Tone Scale, overts/withholds, study tech, assists, 2 way communication, TR’s, and more.  Does it really matter if she is calling herself a Scientologist or not? She is the most generous person I know and works tirelessly to help her family and her friends to improve conditions and get things done.  She looks 20 years younger than she actually is, and has no plan to retire any time soon.
 
Another example is a good friend who is a proficient Book One auditor and has set up many auditing chapters to audit others. Despite her incredible work, her current view is that she is not a Scientologist. I beg to differ, as every conversation I have with her evidences her clear understanding and every-day use of basic Scientology. And her work with the tech continues to help people on a personal basis as well as across other dynamics.  When I recently approached her, to write an article on her great work for this blog, she vacillated on it, based purely on her own consideration that she is not a “Scientologist” anymore.  To me, the label is not what is important. I will persist in my request for an article, as this is a person who knows first hand how to get people auditing others, and achieves this regularly – no matter what name tag she feels she should be wearing.
 
The fact is, I consider someone that is using and applying LRH tech to help others, and to improve conditions, to be a valuable being. Someone who is on OUR side – no matter what they call themselves.
 
LRH states in HCOB 28 May 1960 BY THEIR ACTIONS:
 
“By their actions you shall know them, whether bad or good, whether on another’s side or ours.
“And what in their actions gives us the keenest insight? Their ability to help." LRH
 
LRH also states this in HCOB 10 June 1960 WHAT WE EXPECT OF A SCIENTOLOGIST:
 
“We have many, many personal success stories in Scientology. They begin with a book acquaintance and bloom when professional skill enters the background. These people, small people, big people, drove a wedge for themselves into companies, societies, with Scientology and then took over control of the area. They succeed where they never would have dreamed they could. And every time one of us drives in such a wedge, we all win because the world is brought nearer to a sane and decent world.
 
"The factories, the marts of trade, the homes, the neighbourhoods, these are the places we want trained Scientologists. In that way alone, we’re on the busy, still healthy communication lines of the world.
 
“Some of us need to run centers and schools just to give the rest of us service when required. Training at a pro level must continue and must be kept good. And service and communication must be given. ..."
 
“Any trained Scientologist can win to success in society. Heightened IQ, a knowledge of life, a fortright attitude. With these things it is easy for him or her to improve a social or business position, to get higher pay, to exert wider personal influence. This we know we can do, we have done it so often, so let’s improve the ability.”  LRH
 
What is your view? Do you agree?

Comments   

 
Maurice
+2 # Maurice 2013-02-14 07:33
Lana,

You bring up an interesting point. John McMaster, perhaps the greatest disseminator in Scientology history told LRH "I am not a Scientologist, have never been a Scientologist and will never be a Scientologist. I am just interested in the function of auditing". He continued disseminating and delivering the tech for decades after he left the church in 1969.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
Thoughtful
0 # Thoughtful 2013-02-14 10:22
Maurice, Amazing. Did he ever write any articles regarding his viewpoint? Would be interesting to hear what he had to say and why he said that, since he knew LRH personally.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
Lana M
0 # Lana M 2013-02-25 10:20
Thanks Maurice! If someone is in society and applying LRH tech, and not calling themselves a Scientologist, yet using and disseminating that piece of tech, then that must be a good thing - surely. We want LRH tech to permeate and be adopted by society - and to consider that every person is going to acknowledge the source, or even know the source, is folly.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
swenon
0 # swenon 2013-02-14 11:47
McMasters talked alot after he left, both in interviews and lectures.

McMaster fell from grace in 1968 when he challenged Hubbard for chain-lockering a little deaf-mute girl for a week. He was subject to hard labor, sleep deprivation and other hardships. "Hubbard wanted to break me," he states. In 1969 McMaster resigned from $cientology, and was declared "suppressive" by Hubbard.

McMaster stated in an interview: "I was so excited about the function of auditing ($cientology counseling) that I was willing to overlook Hubbard's faults - . That was up to a point of course, the final point being my realization that his intentions were entirely self-serving. I saw that he was in it for the money and personal power, and his actual intentions were not as stated. The basic function of auditing is a wonderful thing, but Hubbard perverted it."
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
Thoughtful
0 # Thoughtful 2013-02-14 12:03
Thanks, is there a place where any of McMaster's interviews or lectures are available online? Where are you quoting from if you don't mind me asking.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
swenon
0 # swenon 2013-02-14 13:02
There is a thread on esmb with links www.forum.exscn.net/.../
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
Lana M.
0 # Lana M. 2013-02-14 13:05
swenon: I should say -- for the record -- that I would not have passed your comment through on the moderation line, as it is full of entheta about LRH with no sources noted - and it is a comment designed to enturbulate and take this thread off topic. Your comment was passed on by another -- lucky for you -- but no more will be going through unless you state your sources (which will undoubtedly, at the end of the string pull, turn out to be false).
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
Lana M.
0 # Lana M. 2013-02-14 12:42
[quote name="swenon"] McMaster fell from grace in 1968 when he challenged Hubbard for chain-lockering a little deaf-mute girl for a week. He was subject to hard labor, sleep deprivation and other hardships. "Hubbard wanted to break me," he states. In 1969 McMaster resigned from $cientology, and was declared "suppressive" by Hubbard.

If McMaster did not consider himself a Scientologist, then why would he have "resigned from Scientology"?

What is your source of information exactly as I would like to see it personally and find out for myself -- reference HCO PL HOW TO DEFEAT VERBAL TECH CHECKLIST
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
swenon
0 # swenon 2013-02-14 13:05
My source is the internet, just google John McMasters-scientology you will find tons of information about the man. I niether knew him or were there.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
Jim Logan
+1 # Jim Logan 2013-02-14 14:54
John McMaster's renditions of the material on Power, and Search and Discovery are, technically, disaster. "Represent" lists on items that betray a complete lack of comprehension of the topic of L&N. No real idea of what Power is directed towards, and blatant mistake in his description.

It is apparent that his suggestions, are in fact, precisely that point brought up in KSW about "suggestions, IF taken...".

Anybody fool enough to go off onto this stuff, or be "audited" with it...
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
Maurice
0 # Maurice 2013-02-14 16:48
Jim,
I don't know about his comprehension of the tech. I do know that John perfected the Power processes and audited hundreds of people on it at St. Hill. That's one of the reasons LRH sent him out as an "Ambassador" of Scn. I heard him a number of times in 1968-69. Every time he spoke, the halls were packed.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
Jim Logan
0 # Jim Logan 2013-02-14 22:51
Maurice,
How do you know he "perfected" the Power Processes? Do you have some "dox"?

I recall another person sending me something John wrote, and it was evident in that writeup, he had confusions on the topic.

So, I'd like to hear/see how you got this he perfected Power idea.

(His version of S&D is painful to read, in the lack of understanding of the mechanics of suppression. I can't imagine the somatics running it.)
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
Maurice
0 # Maurice 2013-02-15 06:56
Jim,
I got the data from John's lectures. He sounds very credible to me. Here is a link to 4 audios (one from 1970, the others from 1986). There is also 1 transcript from the first '86 lecture. All of them are on the subject of Power.

www.dropbox.com/.../abAq5BI2Vw
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
Jim Logan
0 # Jim Logan 2013-02-15 18:46
Maurice,
Thank you for the link. I've been through two of these various tapes so far. Can you direct me to the one where he says HE, John, came up with the Power Processes? Which of these talks does he make that claim?

Thanks.
P.S. it is not my intent or purpose to "slag" John McMasters in my comments here. I've gone through a couple of these refs you've given, and it is apparent to me John had quite a facility with the material, as well as a firm grasp of TRs and the comm cycle, and he describes fully what LRH had described in a 55 lecture Smoothness of Auditing.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
Maurice
0 # Maurice 2013-02-15 20:24
Jim,
I'm glad to hear your comments about John's facility with the material. To clarify things, John never claimed that he originated the Power processes. He fully credits LRH for that. He does say that he made improvements that made them more workable. That's what I meant by the word "perfected".
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
Thoughtful
+1 # Thoughtful 2013-02-15 22:05
Maurice, I was really impressed listening to John McMaster's first recording. Obviously a very bright man who had two incredible things: 1. a deep understanding of Scientology fundamentals and 2. personal integrity, the winning combination.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
Maurice
0 # Maurice 2013-02-16 10:42
Well said, Steve.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
Jim Logan
0 # Jim Logan 2013-02-15 23:31
Maurice,
I've gone through the Power that John was doing, and it is what is written in the HCOBs, as far as I can tell. Those HCOBs have LRH's byline. It seems John was applying what was/is the final Power Processes, without alteration and a thorough grasp of the material.

There are other comments, natter about LRH type comments, that seem to belie John's grasp of say, Level II tech (which he credits early in his life of Scn for saving his life). It seems to me there is BPC on John's part to do with LRH. What that BPC actually is/was, I would have handled with the appropriate Correction List, and recover the obvious ARC that he originally had for his friend, Ron.

I'll listen to the rest of these tapes.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
Maurice
0 # Maurice 2013-02-14 16:33
Lana,

I heard McMaster make that statement in 1968. He also repeats it on a video of a lecture from the 80s (link given above by swenon).
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
Thoughtful
0 # Thoughtful 2013-02-14 15:23
Swenon freely admitted his source of info which is honest. I looked at the source and there are recordings of John McMaster from 1970. I have now listened to most of the first recording and it does contain some incredible opinions which are interesting because he also left the Church but remained what we would call by his actions, a "Scientologist" — just as we have.

Scientology is ultimately defined as "knowing how to know." If Scientology is valid, then people should be able to read something for themselves and know what parts of it are true, if any. That's not something anyone needs to "control."

Anyway the subject of this post is whether it is important what people call themselves and Lana made the point that what's really important is what people do with the tech.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
Bernie Wimbush
0 # Bernie Wimbush 2013-02-14 17:32
Well Lana,
I'll disagree with you. Your opinion of yourself is important. However, the definition if 'Scientologist' might be a problem. After I returned to OZ, I wouldn't use the term because it associated me with the Corporate squirrel. After meeting Lana and the weekend in Canberra, I cam to see that it was not me that was on the outer but DM and his ilk. This has returned a lot of power to me and revitalized my intentions. Remember BE, DO, HAVE? If I take on the beingnes of a Scientologist, I will do Scientology and have Scientology. The rewards may hve ben poor in the past but they don't need to be. The more we demonstrate what our subject is the sooner we will be easily rewarded for it. McMasters obviously disagreed with Ron. He probably wasn't an SP when declared but because of the wrong item, dramatized the state. Nothing will make sense from thaqt point on.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
Lana M.
0 # Lana M. 2013-02-14 20:16
You are a wise man Bernie. Thank you for that.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
B.Anderson
0 # B.Anderson 2013-02-16 14:04
John McMaster was interviewed in 1985 by Class VII (Power Processing)and Class VIII auditor, and FEBC graduate, Bent Corydon for his book, L. Ron Hubbard, Messiah or Madman?

Material from McMaster can be found in the chapters, A Seafaring Messiah, The Savior Lives Just Down the Road (Corydon had a Mission in Riverside California), Lord of the Manor, and The Sea Org Revisited.

Chapters are indicated rather than page numbers, as the page numbering changed with successive editions, the earliest edition being 1987, the last - expanded by about 60 pages - in 1996.

Hope this helps.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
Jim Logan
0 # Jim Logan 2013-02-16 21:00
B. Anderson,
I read that book some time ago. The material from John Mc that is under discussion here, specifically, is covered in the link provided. I've also read John's opinions on Power, BEFORE it was finalized as LRH wrote the processes. I'm glad that we went the way LRH has it. So too, apparently, was John in the end, as he certainly DID do it that way.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
Martin Gibson
0 # Martin Gibson 2013-02-17 14:23
Oh, and on the exact subject of the thread - I think there is some good in having power of choice over: "i AM a scientologist!".
I reject a part of the definition, implied, of the beingness - a disability and con trick by DM - of slipping a "I am not aware of how this money is exactly spent. Nor can I question the authority of uplines. I must be docile and a sheep regarding command intention. I need not evaluate data".
Power of Choice is senior to responsibility and acts as an overt on self when not granted precedence over decision.
I've made this statement a few times, and I wish I knew a reference to lend it weight, but "TRUTH can be a carrier wave to lies and therefore traps".
Once all the charge is off the area though, I would consider it an invalidation of the tech (which I would consider an act stemming from self MUs or tech applied by others who had MUs). BECAUSE an OT MUST be able to be any part of a game, or that part wields power.

"A rose by any other name, smells as sweet" though.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 

Add comment


Security code
Refresh

2344128
Today
Yesterday
This Week
544
999
4538

Subscribe!


Powered by Google FeedBurner

Easy ShareThis

This is your blog

ticket

This blog was created as a safe space where independent Scientologists can meet, talk and post.

If you fit any of the following criteria, we welcome contributions from you for this blog. Have you experienced results from Scientology

  • Auditing
  • Training
  • Knowledge

Send articles, stories or successes to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Communication

“As the only crime in the universe seems to be to communicate, and as the only saving grace of an awareness of awareness unit is to communicate, we can readily understand that an entanglement of communication is certain to result. What we should understand – and much more happily – is that it can now be resolved.”

L. Ron Hubbard
Dianetics 55!, Chapter Nine
Two-Way Communication

Help Support Us

Making Auditors

courseroom-logo

Standard Tech is alive, and ready to take you to greatness.

Learn More

Training in iScn

dan-koon

A note on training from the man who was there with LRH.

Learn More

Operating Thetan

super-barriers

Training's role in removing the counter-effort from living.

Learn More

FREE Checksheets

meter-dial

LRH Checksheets that made 1000s of successful auditors.

Download Yours